What does Marx mean by this?

[Vanguard1917]

In "Theses on Feurbach", Marx wites:


The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism (that of Feuerbach included) is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively.

He continues:


The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth -- i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.

I think these two paragraphs reveal a lot about Marx's dialectical materialism. Especially: "Man must prove the truth". To me, this means that truth is not something that is separated from practice; for a theory to be proven to be true, human activity is vital. The emphasis placed on subjectivity is also very important. What implications does this have on our approach to Marxism?

[Hiero]

Is there anything in between these two paragraphs?

[Severian]

We discussed that same idea in the this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36310), and I thought xnj explained it pretty well:


One more thing, I think Engels' emphasis on human action is important. Understanding the world requires taking action and changing the world, not just sitting in isolation and thinking. Seems like this was also the point Marx was making in his famous quote from Theses on Feuerbach: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.

A couple implications: it explains why academic Marxologists rarely know the first thing about Marxism, and why the best tactics for a particular struggle can only be known by those engaged in it....

[Seeker]

What implications does this have on our approach to Marxism?


The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.


It sounds like an argument in favor of the scientific method over speculation.

[Vanguard1917]

Thanks for the link to that thread Severian.


A couple implications: it explains why academic Marxologists rarely know the first thing about Marxism, and why the best tactics for a particular struggle can only be known by those engaged in it....

"Academic Marxism" is essentially alien to the spirit of Marxism precisely because it seeks to understand the world independent of human action, "just sitting in isolation and thinking". What Marx showed was that, in order to understand objective reality, men must experiment through their intervention and action.

So this, i think, is the key political implication of Marx's dialectical method: the political organisation of the working class. In its political strategies, and as the revolutionary subject of history, the working class "must prove the truth". Can this also be interpreted as a rejection of tailism?


It sounds like an argument in favor of the scientific method over speculation.

Exactly. Science calls for human intervention and experimentation; speculation on its own is merely speculative - i.e. it doesn't seek to prove, through human intervention and experimentation, that such speculation is indeed true. It's like a surgeon speculating that a heart transplant might be scientifically possible, without actually combining speculation with experimentation. The revolutionary is the social equilavent of the surgeon, and capitalist society is the social equilavent of the defective heart of the ill patient. Without the intervention and experimentation of revolutionaries, the path of history (that Marxists hold to be true) will not be realised. Hence: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it."

[TalMarsh]

I think this connects with the topic in question:

Originally posted by Marx in "Theses on Feuerbach"
The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated. Hence this doctrine is bound to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society. The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.
Referring again to human practice of the theory.


Or have I gotten this the wrong way.. :unsure:

[Vanguard1917]

QUOTE (Marx in "Theses on Feuerbach")

The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances

I couldn't have put it better myself. :P